War-Losing Faction

[Ronald Cherrycoke]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

The UN never approved of the invasion in any way.
I would be interested in which resolution accepted an invasion as acceptable. I read them.
http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2002/sc2002.htm
http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2003/sc2003.htm

What makes you think that we need UN approval for any invasion..I don`t recall that we needed one for Afghanistan or Kosovo.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Ronald Cherrycoke

What makes you think that we need UN approval for any invasion..I don`t recall that we needed one for Afghanistan or Kosovo.

That is because the media hasn't covered those areas and Afganistan had at least some justification in the eyes of other countries, Bush's "you are with us or you are against us" lost us all that support.

[Ronald Cherrycoke]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

That is because the media hasn't covered those areas and Afganistan had at least some justification in the eyes of other countries, Bush's "you are with us or you are against us" lost us all that support.

John B. Bellinger, III, Legal Advisor to the United States National Security Council, wrote in a letter to the Council on Foreign Relations on April 10, 2003:

*

"The United States has clear authority under international law to use force against Iraq under present circumstances.

The legal authority to use force to address Iraq’s material breaches is clear. Nothing in UNSCR 1441 requires a further resolution, or other form of Security Council approval, to authorize the use of force. A 'material breach' of the cease-fire conditions is the predicate for use of force against Iraq. And there can be no doubt that Iraq is in 'material breach' of its obligations, as the Council reaffirmed in UNSCR 1441.

Accordingly, at the outset of hostilities, the United States formally advised the United Nations pursuant to UNSCR 678 that military operations in Iraq 'are authorized under existing Council resolutions, including resolution 678 (1990) and resolution 687 (1991).' The United States noted that 'Iraq repeatedly has refused, over a protracted period of time, to respond to diplomatic overtures, economic sanctions, and other peaceful means designed to help bring about Iraqi compliance with its obligations to disarm Iraq and permit full inspection of its WMD and related programs.'"



4/10/03 John Bellinger

[piercehawkeye45]

How did Iraq fail to comply?

[Ronald Cherrycoke]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

How did Iraq fail to comply?

Here are a few....



Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council

[DanaC]

Oh well, as long as America says it doesn't need international approval for preemptive strikes against another nation state, then obviously that doesn't run counter to international law.

[deadbeater]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

That is because the media hasn't covered those areas and Afganistan had at least some justification in the eyes of other countries, Bush's "you are with us or you are against us" lost us all that support.

No, it was the administration's 'La la la la I'm not hearing you!' attitude that crested support and converting it into hostility.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Ronald Cherrycoke

Here are a few....
Whereas Iraq ....
Whereas the current Iraqi regime ...
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has ....

And not one "Therefore American can attack Iraq". Notice how Ronald Cherrycoke posts a half truth. Notice how he forget to the the part that says, "Therefore military action is justified." Why does he forget? That part never existed.

Ahh, but when does permission ever stop crooks or liars - Nixon or George Jr?

Originally Posted by Ronald Cherrycoke

What makes you think that we need UN approval for any invasion..I don`t recall that we needed one for Afghanistan or Kosovo.

First, we have approval and were attacked by Afghanistan (perhaps indirectly).
I never stated that we had to have anything, I do state that invading a nation that is not a threat, especially not threatening us in any way, is wrong. Period. We are there to steal oil/natural gas and for no other reason. Not even to get rid of SH, that was only for PR.
I state that internationally the Iraqi insurgency is legal and right and what we would be doing in their shoes. I can state that while supporting our troops because those putting our troops in that positions are traitors and criminals, both US and internationally.
Iraq complied with the UN requirements within the deadline... the US kept changing theirs after the fact, not acceptable.

[DanaC]

What makes you think that we need UN approval for any invasion

Well, that all depends on whether you subscribe to the concept of international law, or simply the idea that might is right. If you subscribe to the idea that Might is Right, then no you do not need UN approval, or indeed any other sanction, in order to invade any country you want. You have a natural right, as the most powerful nation on earth to attack or invade any other sovereign nation at any time and with any objective.

By doing so however, you vacate the moral highground which as a country you seem to want to occupy. By vacating that moral highground you lose credibility on the international scene and any potency you may have had when attempting to persuade other aggressive nations not to engage in unwarranted invasions.

All depends on how you see yourselves of course. Do you still see yourselves as the strong, moral, defender of freedom? Or are you the aggressor whom the rest of the world needs to defend against? What makes America's aggression different to any other nation's aggression?

[Undertoad]

When you so dearly respect the sovereign rule of tyrannical dictators, who maintain their sovereignty by killing their own people with nerve gas and feeding them into industrial shredders, you actually honor the concept of "might is right" and are first to vacate that moral high ground.

The will of the people is still the only valid source of sovereignty.

[DanaC]

The will of the people in Iraq was not taken into account. What was taken into account was the will of the Whitehouse. This is not a defence of Saddam's sovereignty, it's a defence of Iraqi sovereignty. More to the point it is a denial that any single nation has the right to determine another nation's political or developmental path.

That a country is run by a dictator is not, in and of itself, a justification for invasion and occupation. It may however, be a justification for exerting international pressure. When South Africa was run under the system of apartheid, in which the larger part of its population was utterly subjugated, the west did not invade. When Afghanistan was under the rule of the Taliban and they were burning down the girls' schools and subjugating their entire female population, the West did not invade until after America had been attacked. There are vicious dictators the world over, it has never been seen as an acceptable rationale for invasion and enforced occupation by another sovereign power.

[Undertoad]

Will of the coalition, fellow coalition partner.

But not by accident, the Iraqis did vote and then did vote again, in numbers higher than in our own countries. With the recognition that it doesn't matter if it all falls back into totalitarian control, there is still currently more recognizable sovereignty than there was in Saddam's Iraq. And more grounds for optimism that, even if it breaks into three parts, the voters will demand their role in each part.

Not in and of itself a justification for invasion and occupation. I agree. Certainly not if something better can't replace it. But one notices that tyrannical "big man" dictators don't give two shits about international pressure, and when they go to the UN they make demands of it, not ask for even the slightest forgiveness from it.

[skysidhe]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Well, that all depends on whether you subscribe to the concept of international law, or simply the idea that might is right. If you subscribe to the idea that Might is Right, then no you do not need UN approval, or indeed any other sanction, in order to invade any country you want. You have a natural right, as the most powerful nation on earth to attack or invade any other sovereign nation at any time and with any objective.

By doing so however, you vacate the moral highground which as a country you seem to want to occupy. By vacating that moral highground you lose credibility on the international scene and any potency you may have had when attempting to persuade other aggressive nations not to engage in unwarranted invasions.

*nodding*

Originally Posted by DanaC

All depends on how you see yourselves of course. Do you still see yourselves as the strong, moral, defender of freedom?

The 'administration' does obviously

Originally Posted by DanaC

Or are you the aggressor whom the rest of the world needs to defend against?

I am feeling like we are looking this way.

Originally Posted by DanaC

What makes America's aggression different to any other nation's aggression?

To at least half of Americans we don't see any difference. There is an 'administration' at work here. They have too much power to do too many wrong actions with the wrong thinking behind it. I think the American people tried to take some of that power away by making Democrates the majority in both governing branches. At least we might have some accountability after a while.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

"Don't" is the default. You shouldn't need a resolution to say "don't".

Finding or expecting defaults in a UN Resolution is going on a snipe hunt. Ain't real. And again, the problems to world security presented by Ba'athist Iraq as run by Saddam -- two invasions and every prospect of more, genocides north and south -- would only be solved by removing Saddam, his sons, and the Ba'ath Party from the picture, and about the only way to do that is with an invasion. I would not credit the notion that the UN did not understand this.